Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
(Reply Br. 2).
20. The claimed method does not limit the second step of writing a high priority
header to a packet in order to ensure that the packet receives high priority
treatment throughout its transmission and regardless of which channel or channels
is used for transmission.
21. Appellants argued that Odlyzko does not disclose the third and fourth steps
of the claimed method. (Appeal Br. 7-8).
22. The Examiner relied upon Fig. 1, elements 10, 50, 52 and 54,
of Odlyzko as evidence that Odlyzko discloses the third and fourth steps. We
reproduce this disclosure below:
Fig. 1 of Odlyzko is a schematic diagram illustrating communications across a
network. (See Odlyzko, col. 5, ll. 7-8).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013